EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (s.u.o.)
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, you have heard what it was about.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I have, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You have testified that you met Mr McCaskill at the post office.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: On how many occasions?
MR DE KOCK: On two occasions, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And whom of you and your team were present during this meeting?
MR DE KOCK: It was Nortje, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Was it only the two of you?
CHAIRPERSON: Did he say two, two occasions, or are we speaking of the first one?
MR HATTINGH: At both, Chairperson. I will lead it.
Is it correct that on both occasions that you were at the post office there were only two persons there, it was yourself and Mr Nortje?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: You said it was Mr Nortje, how certain are you of that?
MR DE KOCK: That is my recollection, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. Upon the first occasion - let us just deal briefly with the first occasion, Mr McCaskill arrived there and according to the evidence that has been led here, he told you that you could not continue with the attack because some of his family members were in the house.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And then you said you threatened him and you told him you could not turn back now.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: Did you send him back and arrange to meet him there again?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: What did you do after he left there?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, from there we moved in general and we waited for the time to arrive to see the source, McCaskill again.
MR HATTINGH: Where were the other members when you met with Mr McCaskill at the post office the first time?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't have an independent recollection, but they would have been in the vicinity in a safe place.
MR HATTINGH: Why did they not accompany you to the rendezvous point?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it would have drawn too much attention, that part of the road was the one that ran to the border post and it was criss-crossed by the Defence Force and a number of white men together would have drawn too much attention.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. And can you recall, after you sent Mr McCaskill, can you recall whether he went to where the other men were, or can you not recall?
MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall.
MR HATTINGH: Did you then go back to the post office upon the time that you had agreed upon with Mr McCaskill?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, I met him there again.
MR HATTINGH: And did he tell you then that there were only ANC persons in the house?
MR DE KOCK: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: What happened then?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my recollection is that Nortje and I went to the other members. I do not have an independent recollection whether Mr McCaskill drove with us and where I met the members. We divided the group that McCaskill would go along with Adamson and Coetser because the situation had changed at the house, because Joe Meyer had left.
MR HATTINGH: Where were they when you met the other members?
MR DE KOCK: They were in the vicinity at a safe point, Chairperson, but I am unable to tell you where they would have been exactly. It would have been a safe place, it would have been close-by, but not so that it would draw attention.
MR HATTINGH: Can you recall how Mr McCaskill arrived at the post office? Did he come by car or on foot?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe he arrived there with a vehicle but I do not remember, but I shall accept it.
MR HATTINGH: Can you recall when you departed from there, did he leave in the same vehicle with you or did he drive with his own vehicle?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot recall, I do not have an independent recollection thereof.
MR HATTINGH: And when you arrived at the other people and you divided the group, was Mr McCaskill present there?
MR DE KOCK: As far as I can recall yes, Chairperson, because he had to go and accompany Adamson and Coetser.
MR HATTINGH: So he must have gone with you or he must have followed you in his own vehicle.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And from there you went to the house where you launched the attack and they left for where they had to go and attack Mr Meyer.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: May I just refer you briefly, you have read the documents of Mr McCaskill.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: I refer to Volume 2, page 71, paragraph 19 thereof and I shall read it to you. He says in paragraph 19
"I left the party at about 23H00, to meet de Kock and his men. I told them who was at the party. They told me to take my car to my work. They accompanied me to take my car to my work. We went to fetch another car next to a garage. We went to my place where the party was held."
So according to that version of his it would appear that you left there in a convoy to his work where you left his vehicle and then you went to another vehicle. Do you recall that?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. I cannot dispute it but I do not recall it.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson. As I understood the arrangement it was with regard to this that you needed further evidence.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Let me go around. Is there anybody that wants to ask questions of Mr de Kock?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I've just got something to put to Mr de Kock.
Mr de Kock, what you have testified about now with regard to Mr Nortje's presence at the post office, you say that "this is my recollection thereof", is there room in that qualification of "that is my recollection thereof", that it could have been otherwise? Because I shall put it to you that Mr Nortje's recollection is that after he and the other members had crossed the river, he and Bosch were in one car and you told them that they had to wait at a specific point, they then went and waited, this is now he and Nortje, and if he recalls correctly it was Vermeulen, they were all in one car, they waited at a predetermined point, Coetser, Adamson and yourself at that stage were elsewhere and while they were waiting there you arrived there in a vehicle and told them that they had to come along and then they went to a place close to the post office and he, Bosch and Vermeulen were still in one car and then there you met with McCaskill, at the place close to the post office and then you had a discussion there.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my recollection is that Nortje was with me, but I am absolutely adamant that we had one vehicle and two persons in the vehicle. I was not the driver, I was the passenger and my memory tells me that it was Mr Nortje who was the driver.
MR LAMEY: And Mr Nortje's recollection is that you divided the group up there and then you climbed in with him and Bosch and Vermeulen in the vehicle and from there you went to the house where the attack was launched, that you and he carried out.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, there was indeed a division because of the circumstances that had changed.
MR LAMEY: I just want to put it to you as Mr Nortje's recollection is of the events.
MR DE KOCK: Very well, Chairperson.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Honourable Chairman.
Mr de Kock, just a few aspects with regard to the paragraph which you have referred to, Volume 2, paragraph 17, page 71, the version that Mr McCaskill will give in his evidence is that he met you upon more than two occasions. He cannot recall how many but it was definitely more than twice that he met you at the post office, can you dispute that?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I can only recall the two occasions, the rest was telephonic contact that we had.
MR JOUBERT: And furthermore he will also say that upon the last occasion that he met with you just before you divided, it was only one vehicle that was there of the Police, in which you were and he can recall there was another person but he says there may have been more persons.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is how I remember it.
MR JOUBERT: And he confirms that you were a passenger in the vehicle.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
MR JOUBERT: And he will also testify further and we shall give an elaboration there that you left from there, he drove behind you in his vehicle to where the other vehicle of the Police was and that the division had taken place there and it was said that certain persons had to go along with him and the others would go to the house.
MR DE KOCK: That is probable, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: And then he will also say that from there you left with your guys to the house that you would penetrate and he left with his vehicle, Adamson and Coetser in the other vehicle went to a premises where he left his vehicle. You cannot dispute or testify to that effect?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I cannot testify or dispute that.
MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Honourable Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr de Kock, have a look please at page 79 of bundle 2, this is the evidence you gave at your criminal trial. You'll see there in the middle of the page your counsel said:
"Please continue."
and you're describing what happened, you said:
"And we had a tremendous struggle you know, to get the equipment together, I would for example, have needed two rubber dinghies because the Caledon at that stage was in flood, it rained regularly and every time it rains the river runs stronger."
I'm just reading this to you to put you in context of what you were saying at the time.
"Eventually we had to acquire three of these toy boats that the children used in a dam or in a swimming pool, that we could use to take our equipment through and then two vehicles with two members each went through the border post at Maseru bridge."
Now who were the four people who came through in the vehicles?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as far as I can recall it was myself, Nortje, Adamson and Bosch.
MR BERGER: So then it would be only Coetser and Vermeulen who crossed the river.
MR DE KOCK: Correct, Chairperson.
MR BERGER: And then you go on
"And we once again reconnoitred the house that evening upon several occasions. We made contact with the source again."
Who are you referring to there who went on those numerous occasions to go and check the house?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as far as I know it was myself and Sgt Nortje.
MR BERGER: Just the two of you?
MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, it was not a difficult situation because the house was right next to the freeway, so to pass it would not be a problem and to do the reconnaissance.
MR BERGER: So let me just understand this. You cross the border, am I correct, when it was still light?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it may have been later, it could have been after the last light, I cannot tell you whether it was light or dark.
MR BERGER: Would you say it was in the late afternoon?
MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, it's possible.
MR BERGER: Mr de Kock, your memory is suddenly fading and I'm trying to be specific. When you started giving evidence this week you were far more accurate in your description of events and I'm trying to get you back to being accurate again.
MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, may I just find out, I specifically asked you whether Mr de Kock was called back with regard to the aspect as to where the meeting was and how many vehicles there were and from where they departed, my learned friend is now asking questions about other aspects for which Mr de Kock was not re-called. At least one would expect him to ask your permission to do so.
MR BERGER: Chairperson, I am cross-examining on the evidence that Mr de Kock has just given and in order for me to do so I'm testing his evidence about when he came in, with whom he came in, how he met up with them at the river and so on. That would all work around ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR BERGER: I beg your pardon?
CHAIRPERSON: Are you arguing that will fall within the confines of what he's testified now?
MR BERGER: Definitely, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Proceed ...(inaudible)
MR BERGER: Mr de Kock, the four of you came through that afternoon, am I correct?
MR DE KOCK: I do not recall whether it was in the afternoon, it may have been when it was dark already.
MR BERGER: And the other two, Coetser and Vermeulen crossed the river, would it have been late at night?
MR DE KOCK: That would have been in the dark, yes.
MR BERGER: And while you were waiting for them, you went to book into a hotel in Maseru?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, we rented two rooms there.
MR BERGER: Was it at that time that you did your surveillance of the house, you and Mr Nortje?
MR DE KOCK: I can concede that Chairperson, but I cannot recall it specifically.
MR BERGER: You don't have a specific recollection of that?
MR DE KOCK: Well we did pass the house, we observed the house, I cannot tell you how many times we drove up and down.
MR BERGER: And Mr Bosch and Adamson, you left them in the hotel room?
MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, I cannot recall.
MR BERGER: And when you met Mr McCaskill at the post office for the first time, had Mr Coetser and Vermeulen already crossed over the river?
MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, I cannot recall.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it still light when you saw McCaskill the first time?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it was dark already.
MR BERGER: I thought you said just now in your evidence that when Mr McCaskill came for the first time to the post office, the other members were waiting nearby in the vicinity, now were you referring to two other members or four other members?
MR DE KOCK: I'm not certain, Chairperson.
MR BERGER: Well do you have a recollection of after meeting McCaskill, and remember now he comes to the post office, he says to you "There are uninvited guests at the house, we have to call off the operation", you say to him "This isn't a time to pull out", you send him away, he comes back, what is it, half an hour, and hour later?
MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, I cannot give you a specific time there, the events were intertwined, the one followed upon the other. I cannot be more specific.
MR BERGER: Well yesterday you said half an hour.
MR DE KOCK: It was half an hour before the attack, Chairperson.
MR BERGER: That he came for the first time or the second time?
MR DE KOCK: The second time, Chairperson.
MR BERGER: Between the first visit when you told him to go back and get the uninvited guests out, and the second visit, do you have a recollection of going down to the river to pick up Vermeulen and Coetser?
MR DE KOCK: I don't have a specific recollection, Chairperson.
MR BERGER: Well what is your memory of what you did between the first time you met McCaskill at the post office and the second?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I'm not certain, we must have been moving around.
MR BERGER: Mr de Kock, is it you just don't want to give any more evidence?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, if I recall it then I can answer it, but if Mr Berger wants me to tell him what he wants to hear, he can just write it out and then I'll read it to him.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, at what time did this thing take place? Approximately 11 o'clock or so?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was late at night, but I think ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: You said that the border closed at ten.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And you could not drive through because by the time the incident was over, the border post was closed.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Then consequently I will only say that this thing happened very quickly, the incident, and when it was over you could not go through the border post.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson, we could not.
CHAIRPERSON: And that is why we can touch upon between ten and eleven.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it can be half an hour before 12 o'clock or half an hour after 12 o'clock. I cannot be more specific. I would like to give you details, but I cannot recall.
CHAIRPERSON: We're trying to work it out. At which stage did you meet the men at the river?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that bit is vague, this is intertwined our coming through and when they came through and the events there on ground level and the handling of Mr McCaskill, the contact with Mr McCaskill, all these things are intertwined and these are not independent events.
CHAIRPERSON: Let us just take it step by step because it's important. I do not know about Lesotho, I have never attended a party there but I would have thought that the people attending the party would have arrived there at approximately 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock and thereafter McCaskill came to you and told you "Listen, there are people there who do not belong there" and you told them "Go and remove those people who do not belong there", and he returns and half an hour later the incident occurred. Now before you met McCaskill when he said there were people at that party that did not belong there, did you have your firearms that the other persons had brought over the river? I think you must have had them because otherwise you would not have been prepared for the attack.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is obvious, but I cannot tell you yes, it was at that exact time, but the probabilities are true.
CHAIRPERSON: When McCaskill came to you did you not know he was going to tell you that "Listen here, there are people there who do not belong there"? At that stage, as I understand your evidence in its entirety, at that stage there you were already ready to launch your attack.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, we were combat ready, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And from that I infer that you must have had the firearms that you needed to launch this attack, you must have already had the firearms in your hands.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, however I cannot give the times as Mr Berger wants them.
CHAIRPERSON: That is why I say let us work it out as close as possible to the time it occurred. As it would appear, when McCaskill met you the first time at the post office you were already ready for the attack, therefore you must have had those weapons and therefore you must have found the guys who went through the river.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because the second time I threatened him.
CHAIRPERSON: You also testified that when Mr McCaskill came to speak to you the other men were there in the vicinity, that indicates that you were ready for the attack.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You were prepared.
MR DE KOCK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: I do not know at what time the sun goes down at that part of the world, but they must have crossed the river when the sun had gone down.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, they would have crossed while it was dark.
CHAIRPERSON: They would not have dared cross otherwise while it was still light.
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, they would have been seen.
CHAIRPERSON: Therefore we know that they went over the river and you were prepared to have those weapons in your hands by the time that McCaskill met you the first time at the post office.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if that helps Mr Berger.
MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson.
You see Mr de Kock, what I find strange is yesterday you will recall Judge Khampepe asked you a question about how you had moved, how long it had taken you to get from the post office to the house and you described how you drove through some suburbs, do you remember that?
MR DE KOCK: Correct, Chairperson.
MR BERGER: You never indicated then that your group had dispersed, in fact I understood from your evidence that you were travelling as a group, the six of you with McCaskill.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my memory is vague with regard to the river part, whether persons were waiting but I made it very clear that myself and another person were at the post office, that there was not a group of persons at the post office.
MR BERGER: Have a look if you would, at page 80 of your amnesty - of the evidence that you gave in the criminal trial, Volume 2. At the top of the page you describe how you met McCaskill at the Maseru post office and you said to him that - well I'll read it, you said
"I told him that when he turned around he must accept that there would be trouble for him."
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BERGER: And then you describe the situation in Lesotho, but if you look at line 14 on that page you say the following
"And although the entire group of us who were there, there were six of us in total, we would have done the attack at one house because all these ANC members were centralised there. Upon our arrival at the scene two persons had already departed. Amongst others it was the Coloured man Joe and then his wife and then I had to send two persons with the source to that house so that they could launch an attack there to kill Joe."
My understanding of this evidence is that you were all gathered together at the post office ...(intervention)
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MR BERGER: No, just let me finish. That you all left from the post office to the house. And then you say
"With our arrival at the scene ..."
which I understood to be the scene of the murders, it was then that you determined that Leon Meyer and Jackie Quinn had left and that was when you sent Adamson, Coetser and McCaskill to their house.
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would not have gone in the middle of that highway with two cars, six men and firearms, I would not have stopped there. The evidence that I gave here was brief with no elaborations and this was a large volume of evidence. There was no way that one could stop in the middle of Leboa Jonathan highway and distribute firearms and tell people where to go, that does not make sense.
MR BERGER: Well if you were ready for the attack when McCaskill came to the post office the first time and then the attack had to be postponed or delayed, so that he could go and get rid of those people who shouldn't have been there, you must have had some communication with the other members of your attack group.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we had radios, we had three or four two-way radios that we found when we were working in Maseru, we found that these were entirely useless because of the mountainous area and the circumstances in Maseru itself, so we did not have any good radio communication.
MR BERGER: So what did the other members do whilst you and Nortje were waiting at the post office?
MR DE KOCK: They were waiting at a safe place, Chairperson.
MR BERGER: And how did you indicate to them that it was time to launch the attack?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we went to them.
MR BERGER: You went to them?
MR DE KOCK: That was after we met with McCaskill the second time that we went to them.
MR BERGER: With McCaskill.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I've already said that.
MR BERGER: And it was then that you divided the group.
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because we were not standing in the highway and taking out people and have people walk with their firearms to another vehicle.
MR BERGER: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, just arising from the cross-examination of Mr de Kock, when my learned friend cross-examined him on these two persons that went with him to do their reconnaissance, I just want to put to Mr de Kock that my instructions are that Mr Nortje did not do reconnaissance work with you with regard to the house after you left the river.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I testify according to my memory, I don't have any other proof and I apologise for that.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, thank you.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
On this last aspect, is it possible that it could have been anybody else besides Mr Nortje who went with you?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, it is probable, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And then briefly, upon various occasions you have given evidence before Committees, the evidence - or may I put it as follows, you were not charged for any offence which followed from the Lesotho incident.
MR DE KOCK: No, I was not.
MR HATTINGH: And the evidence that you offered was with regard to mitigation.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Were you asked to go into the facts of the events or was it about another aspect?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was with regard to mitigation and this was to explain the nature of Vlakplaas' activities to the Court.
MR HATTINGH: And while you accepted that murder upon instruction was not a defence, what were you advised with regard to the question whether that could have an influence on your sentence?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that it may have an influence or it may not. To me it was an issue of I was speaking the truth and I was not trying to mislead the Court.
MR HATTINGH: The fact that you executed this operation under instruction and that it was your impression that the instruction came from above, were you advised whether that would be relevant with regard to your sentence?
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I apologise I cannot recall everything there.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. The time that you had to prepare your amnesty application, we sit here with a single incident, but the application entails about five or six volumes that would have been 10 inches high or so.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And that that had to be prepared while you were in jail.
MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Were you under pressure?
MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, tremendously, not only from the amnesty situation but also from Correctional Services, and the Intelligence Services also approached me with regard to further information and there were further investigations with regard to Inkatha. There was no time for any ...
MR HATTINGH: And how long before the closing date was your application handed in?
MR DE KOCK: I think it was five minutes before the time.
MR HATTINGH: Did you have the time or the opportunity to check it and to see that everything was correct according to your recollection?
MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, if I may, it's just one aspect that has arisen out of the re-examination.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: No, that's fine, I didn't have any questions before this, but now I do.
Mr de Kock, is it correct your counsel has just led you on the fact that your amnesty application was tendered five minutes before the closing time, but we've heard evidence before and in fact your instructing attorney, Mr Hugo, has conceded this at another hearing, that the amnesty application was in fact prepared long before the closing time and ... May I finish please? Thank you. ... that it was in fact conceded at a previous hearing here that the application was deliberately tendered at the last, or at the eleventh hour?
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just come in here. It is not correct that the application was complete long before the time and for the rest of the answer I will leave it to Mr de Kock to deal with it.
MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, one of the aspects that I discussed with Mr Hugo was that I shall hand up my application as late as possible because of the fact that there were many people waiting for me to hand up my application so that they could sit back and work out their defences and get their lies together and commit perjury to my disadvantage, but despite that, the volumes were so many that I still had to make statements of a supplementary nature over other incidents. So these two issues were related. We had to get a few gentlemen from Correctional Services, approximately half past eleven in the evening to come and take statements. But on the other side it was upon my request that we did not hand up my application long before the time. Unfortunately it is true that it did leak at the TRC and I want to say, and I apologise if people will be angry with me, but that was not the idea, but we are dealing with reality, if it were not for those medals then only I and Nortje and three other people would be sitting here today and there would have been a statement here that said that we do not oppose the application, this is just an example of how de Kock is lying. I am not saying this to the detriment or to jeopardise anybody, I stand here on my own and independently. So yes, on the one side you are correct and on the other side you are not correct.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
MR HATTINGH: I would just like to emphasise, Mr Chairman, there was no evidence to the effect that the application was completed for ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, to be quite honest, if there was a closing date and a closing time, unless it's really important, I'm not going to infer anything from an eleventh hour application.
Thank you, Mr de Kock.
MR DE KOCK: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, are you on next?
MR LAMEY: Indeed, Chairperson.
